Global Food Losses and Food Waste: FAO

Study conducted for the International Congress SAVE FOOD! at Interpack2011 Düsseldorf, Germany

Global f o o d losses a n d f o o d waste extent, causes and prevention

Rural Infrastructure and Agro-Industries Division (AGS) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome - Italy www.fao.org/ag/ags e-mail: [email protected] fax: +39 06 57053057

Cover photos: Jonathan Bloom and Nick Saltmarsh Cover design: Simone Morini

Study conducted for the International Congress SAVE FOOD! at Interpack2011 Düsseldorf, Germany

by Jenny Gustavsson Christel Cederberg Ulf Sonesson Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK) Gothenburg, Sweden

Global f o o d losses a n d f o o d waste

and Robert van Otterdijk Alexandre Meybeck FAO Rome, Italy

extent, causes and prevention

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome, 2011

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of FAO. All rights reserved. FAO encourages the reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Non-commercial uses will be authorized free of charge, upon request. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes, including educational purposes, may incur fees. Applications for permission to reproduce or disseminate FAO copyright materials, and all queries concerning rights and licences, should be addressed by e-mail to [email protected] or to the Chief, Publishing Policy and Support Branch, Office of Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy. © FAO 2011

iii

Contents Preface

iv

Executive summary

v

1. Introduction

1

2. Methodology

2

3. Extent of food losses and waste

4



2.1 Definition of food losses and food waste 2.2 Types of food losses and food waste 2.3 Quantification of food losses and waste 3.1 Food volumes produced 3.2 Extent of food losses and waste

2 2 3 4 4

4. Causes and prevention of food losses and waste

10

5. Conclusions

15

References

16

Further reading

17

Annexes

23

iv

Preface This publication is based on studies carried out from August 2010 to January 2011 by The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK) on request from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The two studies on global food losses (one for high/medium-income countries and one for low income countries) have been carried out to serve as a basis for the international congress Save Food!, 16-17 May 2011, at the international packaging industry fair Interpack2011 in Düsseldorf, Germany. Save Food! has been co-organized by Interpack2011 and FAO. Save Food! aims at awareness raising on global food losses and waste, and on the impact of these on poverty and hunger in the world, as well as on climate change and on the use of natural resources. The authors would like to thank Lisa Kitinoja, Adel Kader, Felicitas Schneider, Vaclav Smil and Jesper Stage among other researchers who have contributed helpful inputs throughout the project. Special thanks go to Jonathan Bloom, Harris Graber and Nick Saltmarsh for their photos, to Simone Morini for the cover design and the layout, and to Larissa D'Aquilio for the graphic project coordination.

v

Executive summary The study highlights the losses occurring along the entire food chain, and makes assessments of their magnitude. Further, it identifies causes of food losses and possible ways of preventing them. The results of the study suggest that roughly one-third of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted globally, which amounts to about 1.3 billion tons per year. This inevitably also means that huge amounts of the resources used in food production are used in vain, and that the greenhouse gas emissions caused by production of food that gets lost or wasted are also emissions in vain. Food is lost or wasted throughout the supply chain, from initial agricultural production down to final household consumption. In medium- and high-income countries food is to a significant extent wasted at the consumption stage, meaning that it is discarded even if it is still suitable for human consumption. Significant losses also occur early in the food supply chains in the industrialized regions. In low-income countries food is lost mostly during the early and middle stages of the food supply chain; much less food is wasted at the consumer level. Overall, on a per-capita basis, much more food is wasted in the industrialized world than in developing countries. We estimate that the per capita food waste by consumers in Europe and North-America is 95-115 kg/year, while this figure in Sub-Saharan Africa and South/Southeast Asia is only 6-11 kg/year. The causes of food losses and waste in low-income countries are mainly connected to financial, managerial and technical limitations in harvesting techniques, storage and cooling facilities in difficult climatic conditions, infrastructure, packaging and marketing systems. Given that many smallholder farmers in developing countries live on the margins of food insecurity, a reduction in food losses could have an immediate and significant impact on their livelihoods. The food supply chains in developing countries need to be strengthened by, inter alia, encouraging small farmers to organize and to diversify and upscale their production and marketing. Investments in infrastructure, transportation, food industries and packaging industries are also required. Both the public and private sectors have a role to play in achieving this. The causes of food losses and waste in medium/high-income countries mainly relate to consumer behaviour as well as to a lack of coordination between different actors in the supply chain. Farmer-buyer sales agreements may contribute to quantities of farm crops being wasted. Food can be wasted due to quality standards, which reject food items not perfect in shape or appearance. At the consumer level, insufficient purchase planning and expiring ‘best-before-dates’ also cause large amounts of waste, in combination with the careless attitude of those consumers who can afford to waste food. Food waste in industrialized countries can be reduced by raising awareness among food industries, retailers and consumers. There is a need to find good and beneficial use for safe food that is presently thrown away. The study revealed that there are major data gaps in the knowledge of global food loss and waste. Further research in the area is urgent.

vi

Food security is a major concern in large parts of the developing world. Food production must clearly increase significantly to meet the future demands of an increasing and more affluent world population. This study illustrate that one of the first mean to fight imbalances and reduce tensions between the necessary increase in consumption and the challenging increase in production, is to also promote food loss reduction which alone has a considerable potential to increase the efficiency of the whole food chain. In a world with limited natural resources (land, water, energy, fertilizer), and where cost-effective solutions are to be found to produce enough safe and nutritious food for all, reducing food losses should not be a forgotten priority.

1

1. Introduction The issue of food losses is of high importance in the efforts to combat hunger, raise income and improve food security in the world’s poorest countries. Food losses have an impact on food security for poor people, on food quality and safety, on economic development and on the environment. The exact causes of food losses vary throughout the world and are very much dependent on the specific conditions and local situation in a given country. In broad terms, food losses will be influenced by crop production choices and patterns, internal infrastructure and capacity, marketing chains and channels for distribution, and consumer purchasing and food use practices. Irrespective of the level of economic development and maturity of systems in a country, food losses should be kept to a minimum. Food losses represent a waste of resources used in production such as land, water, energy and inputs. Producing food that will not be consumed leads to unnecessary CO2 emissions in addition to loss of economic value of the food produced. Economically avoidable food losses have a direct and negative impact on the income of both farmers and consumers. Given that many smallholders live on the margins of food insecurity, a reduction in food losses could have an immediate and significant impact on their livelihoods. For poor consumers (food insecure or at-risk households), the priority is clearly to have access to food products that are nutritious, safe and affordable. It is important to note that food insecurity is often more a question of access (purchasing power and prices of food) than a supply problem. Improving the efficiency of the food supply chain could help to bring down the cost of food to the consumer and thus increase access. Given the magnitude of food losses, making profitable investments in reducing losses could be one way of reducing the cost of food. But that would, of course, require that financial gains from reduced losses are not outweighed by their costs. How much food is lost and wasted in the world today and how can we prevent food losses? Those are questions impossible to give precise answers to, and there is not much ongoing research in the area. This is quite surprising as forecasts suggest that food production must increase significantly to meet future global demand. Insufficient attention appears to be paid to current global food supply chain losses, which are probably substantial. For the international congress Save Food! at Interpack2011, FAO hired the services of the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK) to carry out two studies on the extent and effects, as well as causes and prevention of food losses and food waste, one for high/medium-income countries, and one for low-income countries. The two studies highlighted the food losses occurring along food chains, and made assessments of the magnitude of these losses, focussing on quantitative weight losses. They compile, analyze and assemble data and reports produced on the topic of global food loss and waste during recent years. Where information was not available, assessments and assumptions have been made. Results of the two studies are combined in this paper.

2

2. Methodology The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK) has reconstructed mass flows of food aimed to human consumption, from production to consumption, using available data, in order to quantify food losses and wastes.

2.1 Definition of food losses and food waste Food losses refer to the decrease in edible food mass throughout the part of the supply chain that specifically leads to edible food for human consumption. Food losses take place at production, postharvest and processing stages in the food supply chain (Parfitt et al., 2010). Food losses occuring at the end of the food chain (retail and final consumption) are rather called “food waste”, which relates to retailers’ and consumers’ behavior. (Parfitt et al., 2010). “Food” waste or loss is measured only for products that are directed to human consumption, excluding feed and parts of products which are not edible. Per definition, food losses or waste are the masses of food lost or wasted in the part of food chains leading to “edible products going to human consumption”. Therefore food that was originally meant to human consumption but which fortuity gets out the human food chain is considered as food loss or waste even if it is then directed to a non-food use (feed, bioenergy…). This approach distinguishes “planned” non-food uses to “unplanned” non-food uses, which are hereby accounted under losses.

2.2 Types of food losses/waste Five system boundaries were distinguished in the food supply chains (FSC) of vegetable and animal commodities. Food loss/ waste were estimated for each of these segments of the FSC. The following aspects were considered: Vegetable commodities and products: Agricultural production: losses due to mechanical damage and/or spillage during harvest operation (e.g. threshing or fruit picking), crops sorted out post harvest, etc. Postharvest handling and storage: including losses due to spillage and degradation during handling, storage and transportation between farm and distribution. Processing: including losses due to spillage and degradation during industrial or domestic processing, e.g. juice production, canning and bread baking. Losses may occur when crops are sorted out if not suitable to process or during washing, peeling, slicing and boiling or during process interruptions and accidental spillage. Distribution: including losses and waste in the market system, at e.g. wholesale markets, supermarkets, retailers and wet markets. Consumption: including losses and waste during consumption at the household level. Animal commodities and products: Agricultural production: for bovine, pork and poultry meat, losses refer to animal death during breeding. For fish, losses refer to discards during fishing. For milk, losses refer to decreased milk production due to dairy cow sickness (mastitis).

Chapter 2 − Methodology

3

Postharvest handling and storage: for bovine, pork and poultry meat, losses refer to death during transport to slaughter and condemnation at slaughterhouse. For fish, losses refer to spillage and degradation during icing, packaging, storage and transportation after landing. For milk, losses refer to spillage and degradation during transportation between farm and distribution. Processing: for bovine, pork and poultry meat, losses refer to trimming spillage during slaughtering and additional industrial processing, e.g. sausage production. For fish, losses refer to industrial processing such as canning or smoking. For milk, losses refer to spillage during industrial milk treatment (e.g. pasteurization) and milk processing to, e.g., cheese and yoghurt. Distribution: includes losses and waste in the market system, at e.g. wholesale markets, supermarkets, retailers and wet markets. Consumption: includes losses and waste at the household level.

2.3 Quantification of food losses and waste Physical mass of food produced for human consumption and of food lost and wasted throughout the food supply chain have been quantified, using available data, results from the literature on global food waste and SIK’s own assumptions. For each commodity group a mass flows model was used to account for food losses and waste in each step of the commodity’s FSC. Model equations are provided in Annex 5. The production volumes for all commodities (except for oil crops and pulses) were collected from the FAO Statistical Yearbook 2009 (FAOSTAT 2010a). The production volumes for oil crops and pulses were collected from FAO’s Food Balance Sheets (FAOSTAT 2010d). Allocation factors have been applied to determine the part of the produce oriented to human consumption (and not for animal feed). Conversion factors have been applied to determine the edible mass (Annex 2). At each stage of the Food Supply Chain, losses and waste were estimated using FAO’s Food Balance Sheets from the year 2007 and results from a thorough literature search on the topic of global food waste. Where there are gaps of knowledge, SIK has made own assumptions and estimations, based on food waste levels in comparable regions, commodity groups and/or steps of the FSC. The figures used are presented in Annex 4. The sources and assumptions behind these estimations are described in detail in the study reports from SIK.

4

3. Extent of food losses and waste

3.1 Food volumes produced Figure 1 illustrates the 2007 production volumes of all commodity groups in their primary form, including animal feed products (which are then factored out using allocation factors), in the regions of the world studied. The production volumes were compiled from the FAO Statistical Yearbook 2009, except for the production volumes of oil crops and pulses which were collected from FAO’s FBS, 2007. Meat production in Industrialized Asia was dominated by large pig (around 46 million ton) and chicken (around 12 million ton) production. Meat production in Europe was dominated by pig (around 27 million ton) while it was more diversified in North America and Oceania, with chicken (18 million ton), cattle (16 million ton) and pig (12 million ton). In developing regions, meat in Latin America was dominated by large cattle (around 15 million ton) and chicken (around 17 million ton) production. Meat produced in South and Southeast Asia mainly consisted of pig (7 million ton) and chicken (9 million ton). Animal production in sub-Saharan Africa mostly consisted of cattle (around 4 million ton) and in North Africa, West and Central Asia it was mostly chicken (around 4 million ton) production.

3.2 Extent of food losses and waste Roughly one-third of the edible parts of food produced for human consumption, gets lost or wasted globally, which is about 1.3 billion ton per year. Food is wasted throughout the FSC, from initial agricultural production down to final household consumption. In medium- and high-income countries food is to a great extent wasted, meaning that it is thrown away even if it is still suitable for human consumption. Significant food loss and waste do, however, also occur early in the food supply chain. In low-income countries food is mainly lost during the early and middle stages of the food supply chain; much less food is wasted at the consumer level.

Figure 1. Production volumes of each commodity group, per region (million tonnes) 700

Europe North America, Oceania

600

Industrialized Asia Subsahara Africa

500

North Africa, West & Central Asia South & Southeast Asia

400

Latin America

300 200 100 0 Cereals

Root & tubers

Oilcrops & pulses

Fruits & vegetables

Meat

Fish

Dairy

Chapter 3 − Extent of food losses and waste

5

Figure 2. Per capita food losses and waste, at consumption and pre-consumptions stages, in different regions Per capita food losses and waste (kg/year) 350

consumer production to retailing

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Europe

North America & Oceania

Industrialized Asia

Subsahara Africa

North Africa, West & Central Asia

South & Southeast Asia

Latin America

Figure 2 shows that the per capita food loss in Europe and North-America is 280-300 kg/year. In SubSaharan Africa and South/Southeast Asia it is 120-170 kg/year. The total per capita production of edible parts of food for human consumption is, in Europe and North-America, about 900 kg/year and, in subSaharan Africa and South/Southeast Asia, 460 kg/year. Per capita food wasted by consumers in Europe and North-America is 95-115 kg/year, while this figure in sub-Saharan Africa and South/Southeast Asia is only 6-11 kg/year. Food losses in industrialized countries are as high as in developing countries, but in developing countries more than 40% of the food losses occur at post harvest and processing levels, while in industrialized countries, more than 40% of the food losses occur at retail and consumer levels. Food waste at consumer level in industrialized countries (222 million ton) is almost as high as the total net food production in subSaharan Africa (230 million ton). The graphs of the seven commodity groups below show the percentage food losses and waste of the edible parts of food products that were produced for human consumption. In the case of cereals (Figure 3), wheat is the dominant crop supply in medium- and high-income countries, and the consumer phase is the stage with largest losses, between 40-50% of total cereal food waste. In low-income regions rice is the dominant crop, especially in the highly populated region of South and Southeast Asia. For these regions, agricultural production and postharvest handling and storage are stages in the FSC with relatively high food losses, as opposed to the distribution and consumption levels. In the roots and tubers group (Figure 4), potato (sweet potato in China) is the dominating crop supply in medium- and high-income countries. Results indicate that all three medium- and high-income regions loose the largest volumes during agricultural production. This mainly depends on postharvest crop grading, due to quality standards set by retailers. Food waste at the consumer level is, however, also high.

Global food losses and food waste

6

Figure 3. Part of the initial production lost or wasted, at different FSC stages, for cereals in different regions Food losses - Cereals 60% 50% 40%

Consumption

30%

Distribution Processing

20%

Postharvest

10%

Agriculture

0% Europe

North Industrialized Subsahara North Africa, America & Asia Africa West & Oceania Central Asia

South & Southeast Asia

Latin America

Cassava is the dominant supply crop in SSA and LA and potato the dominant crop in North America, West Asia and Central Asia, and South and Southeast Asia. For these regions, agricultural production and postharvest handling and storage are stages in the FSC with relatively high food losses, as opposed to the distribution and consumption levels. One reason for this is that fresh roots and tubers are perishable, which make these products easily damaged during harvest and postharvest activities, especially in the warm and humid climates of many developing countries. In the oil crops and pulses commodity group (Figure 5), sunflower seed and rape seed are the dominating crop supplies in Europe, while soybeans are the dominating crop supply in North America and Oceania and Industrialized Asia. Losses in all medium- and high-income regions are relatively large during agricultural production, contributing waste percentages between 6 and 12% during harvest.

Figure 4. Part of the initial production lost or wasted at different stages of the FSC for root and tuber crops in different region Food losses - Roots & Tubers 60% 50% 40%

Consumption

30%

Distribution Processing

20%

Postharvest

10%

Agriculture

0% Europe

North Industrialized Subsahara America & Asia Africa Oceania

North Africa, West & Central Asia

South & Southeast Asia

Latin America

Chapter 3 − Extent of food losses and waste

7

Figure 5. Part of the initial production lost or wasted at different stages in the FSC for oilseeds and pulses in different regions Food losses - Oilseeds & Pulses 60% 50% 40%

Consumption

30%

Distribution Processing

20%

Postharvest

10%

Agriculture

0% Europe

North Industrialized Subsahara America & Asia Africa Oceania

North Africa, South & West & Southeast Central Asia Asia

Latin America

Groundnut is a dominant oil crop in SSA; soybean and olives in North America, West and Central Asia; soybean and coconut in South and Southeast Asia and soybean in Latin America. Losses in these regions are largest in agricultural production and during postharvest handling and storage. This is, however, also due to the fact that oil crops in the distribution and consumption stages are mainly consumed as vegetable oils, products which are wasted relatively little compared to fresh products. In the fruits and vegetables commodity group (Figure 6), losses in agricultural production dominate for all three industrialized regions, mostly due to postharvest fruit and vegetable grading caused by quality standards set by retailers. Waste at the end of the FSC is also substantial in all three regions, with 15-30% of purchases by mass discarded by consumers. In developing regions losses in agricultural production dominate total losses throughout the FSC. Losses during postharvest and distribution stages are also severe, which can be explained by deterioration of

Figure 6. Part of the initial production lost or wasted at different stages of the FSC for fruits and vegetables in different regions Food losses - Fruits & Vegetables 60% 50% 40%

Consumption

30%

Distribution Processing

20%

Postharvest

10%

Agriculture

0% Europe

North Industrialized Subsahara America & Asia Africa Oceania

North Africa, South & West & Southeast Central Asia Asia

Latin America

Global food losses and food waste

8

Figure 7. Part of the initial production lost or wasted for meat products at different stages in the FSC in different regions Food losses - Meat 60% 50% 40%

Consumption

30%

Distribution Processing

20%

Slaughter

10%

Animal production

0% Europe

North Industrialized Subsahara North Africa, South & America & Asia Africa West & Southeast Oceania Central Asia Asia

Latin America

perishable crops in the warm and humid climate of many developing countries as well as by seasonality that leads to unsaleable gluts. In the case of meat and meat products (Figure 7): losses and waste in industrialized regions are most severe at the end of the FSC, explained by a high per capita meat consumption combined with large waste proportions by retailers and consumers, especially in Europe and the U.S. Waste at the consumption level makes up approximately half of total meat losses and waste. The relatively low levels of waste during agricultural production and postharvest handling and storage can be explained by relatively low losses due to animal mortality during breeding and transportation to slaughter. Losses in all developing regions are distributed quite equally throughout the FSC, but notable is the relatively high losses in agricultural production in SSA. This is explained by high animal mortality, caused by frequent diseases (e.g. pneumonia, digestive diseases and parasites) in livestock breeding.

Figure 8. Part of the initial catchings (fish and seafood harvested) discarded, lost and wasted in different regions and at different stages in the FSC Food losses - Fish & Seafood 60% 50% 40%

Consumption

30%

Distribution Processing

20%

Post catch

10%

Fisheries

0% Europe

North Industrialized Subsahara North Africa, South & America & Asia Africa West & Southeast Oceania Central Asia Asia

Latin America

Chapter 3 − Extent of food losses and waste

9

Box 1. Snapshot case: fish discards Fish discards as potential human consumption Discards, the proportion of total catch that is returned to the sea (in most case dead, dying or badly damaged), represent a significant part of the world’s marine catches and is generally considered a wasteful misuse of marine resources. The first global assessment was published in 1994 and it identified a total discard of 27 million ton (Alverson et al., 1994). The latest global study conducted by FAO in 2005 suggests that discard have dropped to 7.3 million but the figures are not totally comparable. Even if the first was overestimated and the latter underestimated, reductions seem to have been significant. The latest assessment corresponds to a weighted global discard ratio of 8%. However, large variations among fishing methods and regions exist (Kelleher, 2005).

For all three industrialized regions, losses in primary fish and seafood (Figure 8) production are significant due to discard rates of between 9-15% of marine catches. A large proportion of purchased fish and seafood is also wasted by consumer households. In developing countries, losses in primary production mostly depend on discard rates between 6-8% of marine catches. High losses at the distribution level can be explained by high levels of deterioration occurring during fresh fish and seafood distribution. For milk (Figure 9): waste at the consumption level makes up approximately 40-65% of total food waste in all three industrialized regions. Losses in agricultural production are significant since dairy cow illness (mostly mastitis infections) causes an approximate 3-4% decrease in milk yield. For all developing regions, waste of milk during postharvest handling and storage, as well as at the distribution level, is relatively high.

Figure 9. Part of the initial milk and diary production lost or waisted for each region at different stages in the FSC Food losses - Dairy products 60% 50% 40%

Consumption

30%

Distribution Processing

20%

Postharvest

10%

Agriculture

0% Europe

North Industrialized Subsahara North Africa, South & America & Asia Africa West & Southeast Oceania Central Asia Asia

Latin America

10

4. Causes and prevention of food losses and waste Food is wasted throughout the FSC, from initial agricultural production down to final household consumption. In medium- and high-income countries food is to a high extent wasted, meaning that it is thrown away, even if it is still suitable for human consumption. Significant food loss and waste do, however, also occur earlier in the food supply chain. In low-income countries food is mostly lost during the production-to-processing stages of the food supply chain. In industrialized countries food gets lost when production exceeds demand. In order to ensure delivery of agreed quantities while anticipating unpredictable bad weather or pest attacks, farmers sometimes make production plans on the safe side, and end-up producing larger quantities than needed, even if conditions are “average”. In the case of having produced more than required, some surplus crops are sold to processors or as animal feed. However, this is often not financially profitable considering lower prices in these sectors compared to those from retailers. Prevention: Communication and cooperation between farmers. Cooperation among farmers could reduce risk of overproduction by allowing surplus crops from one farm to solve a shortage of crops on another (Stuart, 2009). In developing countries and, sometimes, developed countries, food may be lost due to premature harvesting. Poor farmers sometimes harvest crops too early due to food deficiency or the desperate need for cash during the second half of the agricultural season. In this way, the food incurs a loss in nutritional and economic value, and may get wasted if it is not suitable for consumption. Prevention: Organizing small farmers and diversifying and upscaling their production and marketing. Small resource-poor farmers can be organized in groups to produce a variety of significant quantities of cash crops or animals. In this way they can receive credit from agricultural financial institutions or advance payments from buyers of the produce.

Box 2. Snapshot case: appearance quality standards Carrot quality standards, by the supermarket chain Asda As research for the book ‘Waste – understanding the global food scandal’ (2009), Tristram Stuart visited several British farms in order to understand how quality standards affect the level of food waste. Among others, Stuart visited M.H. Poskitt Carrots in Yorkshire, a major supplier to the supermarket chain Asda. At the farm, the author was shown large quantities of out-graded carrots, which, having a slight bend, were sent off as animal feed. In the packing house, all carrots passed through photographic sensor machines, searching for aesthetic defects. Carrots that were not bright orange, had a blend or blemish or were broken were swept off into a livestock feed container. As staff at the farm put it: “Asda insist that all carrots should be straight, so customers can peel the full length in one easy stroke” (Stuart, 2009). In total, 25-30% of all carrots handled by M.H. Poskitt Carrots were out-graded. About half of these were rejected due to physical or aesthetic defects, such as being the wrong shape or size; being broken or having a cleft or a blemish.

Chapter 4 − Causes and prevention of food losses and waste

11

High ‘appearance quality standards’ from supermarkets for fresh products lead to food waste. Some produce is rejected by supermarkets at the farm gate due to rigorous quality standards concerning weight, size, shape and appearance of crops. Therefore, large portions of crops never leave the farms. Even though some rejected crops are used as animal feed, the quality standards might divert food originally aimed for human consumption to other uses (Stuart, 2009). Prevention: Consumer surveys by supermarkets. Supermarkets seem convinced that consumers will not buy food which has the ‘wrong’ weight, size or appearance. Surveys do however show that consumers are willing to buy heterogeneous produce as long as the taste is not affected (Stuart, 2009). Consumers have the power to influence the quality standards. This could be done by questioning them and offering them a broader quality range of products in the retail stores. Prevention: Sales closer to consumers. Selling farm crops closer to consumers without having to pass the strict quality standards set up by supermarkets on weight, size and appearance would possibly reduce the amount of rejected crops. This could be achieved through, e.g., farmers markets and farm shops (Stuart, 2009). Poor storage facilities and lack of infrastructure cause postharvest food losses in developing countries. Fresh products like fruits, vegetables, meat and fish straight from the farm or after the catch can be spoilt in hot climates due to lack of infrastructure for transportation, storage, cooling and markets (Rolle, 2006; Stuart, 2009). Prevention: investment in infrastructure and transportation. Governments should improve the infrastructure for roads, energy and markets. Subsequently, private sector investments can improve storage and cold chain facilities as well as transportation (Choudhury, 2006). Unsafe food is not fit for human consumption and therefore is wasted. Failure to comply with minimum food safety standards can lead to food losses and, in extreme cases, impact on the food security status of a country. A range of factors can lead to food being unsafe, such as naturally occurring toxins in food itself, contaminated water, unsafe use of pesticides, and veterinary drug residues. Poor and unhygienic handling and storage conditions, and lack of adequate temperature control, can also cause unsafe food. Prevention: develop knowledge and capacity of food chain operators to apply safe food handling practices. Food chain operators should be skilled and knowledgeable in how to produce safe food. Foods need to

©FAO / V. Maximov

Box 3. Snapshot case: poor postharvest facilities Lack of facilities for rice threshing, drying and winnowing, Tajikistan A farmer winnowing rice in Tursunzade, Tajikistan in 2010. Sun drying exposes rice to rodents and parasites, which may eat or damage the harvested crops. Proper storage facilities are also important in order to reduce the amounts of food lost during postharvest handling and storage.

Global food losses and food waste

12

Box 4. Snapshot case: food safety at risk

©FAO / g. diana

Rickshaws transporting milk in Bangladesh Rickshaws transporting milk from the countryside to processing plants in Baghabarighat, Bangladesh. Transporting milk in the warm and humid climate of Bangladesh without a proper cold chain may cause milk losses. The rickshaw transportation on narrow and winding roads prolongs the time milk is handled in warm temperatures.

be produced, handled and stored in accordance with food safety standards. This requires the application of good agricultural and good hygienic practices by all food chain operators to ensure that the final food protects the consumer. ‘Disposing is cheaper than using or re-using’ attitude in industrialized countries leads to food waste. Industrialized food processing lines often carry out trimming to ensure the end product is in the right shape and size. Trimmings, in some cases, could be used for human consumption but are usually disposed of. Food is also lost during processing because of spoilage down the production line. Errors during processing lead to final products with the wrong weight, shape or appearance, or damaged packaging, without affecting the safety, taste or nutritional value of the food. In a standardized production line these products often end up being discarded (Stuart, 2009; SEPA, 2008). Prevention: develop markets for ‘sub-standard’ products. Both commercial and charity organizations could arrange for the collection and sale or use of discarded ‘sub-standard’ products that are still safe and of good taste and nutritional value (SEPA 2008).

© H. Graber

Box 5. Snapshot case: disposing is cheaper than using or re-using French fries production in The Netherlands During his thesis, D. Somsen interviewed a Dutch french fries producer to better understand the causes of food waste in the french fries production line (Somsen, 2004). The company reported several steps in the production line where raw material was lost and wasted, e.g. during the size reduction in which potatoes are cut into strips. French fries are fragile and easily break when transported during processing as well as when packaged. The unwanted products are sorted out and occasionally end up wasted. In addition to this, some potatoes are sorted out prior to entering the factory, due to damage during loading, transport from producer to factory and/or during storage.

Chapter 4 − Causes and prevention of food losses and waste

13

Box 6. Snapshot case: poor market facilities

©FAO / o. argenti

Central wholesale market in Pakistan Central wholesale market in Lahore, Pakistan. These bananas are traded among unsanitary conditions, causing major health hazards since food is handled and piled on the ground close to the gutter. This kind of market environment also causes food waste, since the unsanitary conditions and rough handling cause deterioration of fragile fresh products.

Lack of processing facilities causes high food losses in developing countries. In many situations the food processing industry doesn’t have the capacity to process and preserve fresh farm produce to be able to meet the demand. Part of the problem stems from the seasonality of production and the cost of investing in processing facilities that will not be used year-round. Prevention: develop contract farming linkages between processors and farmer. Governments should create a better ‘enabling environment’ and investment climate, to stimulate the private sector to invest in the food industry and to work more closely with farmers to address supply issues. Large quantities on display and a wide range of products/ brands in supply lead to food waste in industrialized countries. Retail stores need to order a variety of food types and brands from the same manufacturer to get beneficial prices. Consumers also expect a wide range of products to be available in stores. A wide range of products does, however, increase the likelihood of some of them reaching their “sell-by” date before being sold, and thereby wasted. When shopping, consumers expect store shelves to be well filled. Although certainly beneficial for sales statistics, continually replenished supplies mean that food products close to expiry are often ignored by consumers. This is particularly difficult for small retail stores (SEPA, 2008). Inadequate market systems cause high food losses in developing countries. To minimize losses, the commodities produced by farmers need to reach the consumers in an efficient way. There are too few wholesale, supermarket and retail facilities providing suitable storage and sales conditions for food products. Wholesale and retail markets in developing countries are often small, overcrowded, unsanitary and lacking cooling equipment (Kader, 2005). Prevention: Marketing cooperatives and improved market facilities. Marketing cooperatives are organizations providing a central point for assembling produce from small farmers and preparing commodities for transportation to markets and other distribution channels. The marketing cooperatives should be able to reduce food losses by increasing the efficiency of these activities. Although the development of wholesale and retail markets should preferably be done by the private sector, local governments and marketing cooperatives can be instrumental in establishing and improving market facilities (Kader, 2005). Food wasted at consumer level is minimal in developing countries. Poverty and limited household income make it unacceptable to waste food. A contributing factor is that consumers in developing countries generally buy smaller amounts of food products at the time, often just enough for meals on the day of purchase.

14

Global food losses and food waste

Box 7. Snapshot case: public awareness raising Voluntary initiatives ‘Stop Wasting Food’ in Denmark give guidance to consumers on how to avoid wasting food by shopping according to daily needs of households, and promotes better household planning and shopping patterns in order to encourage a movement away from impulsive to rational food shopping and consumption patterns In the UK, the Waste Reduction Action Plan (WRAP) encourages leading retailers, brand owners and their supply chains to identify collaborative approaches towards reducing the amount of food and packaging waste that ends up in the household bin and ultimately in landfill. WRAP aims at reducing packaging waste and consumer food waste by carrying out R&D work, by guidance on best practices and by promotion. WRAP partners with packaging manufacturers, retailers, brands, suppliers, research institutes, universities, design agencies and environmental and design consultants.

Abundance and consumer attitudes lead to high food waste in industrialized countries. Perhaps one of the most important reasons for food waste at the consumption level in rich countries is that people simply can afford to waste food. The amount of available food per person in retail stores and restaurants has increased during the last decades in both the USA and the EU. A lot of restaurants serve buffets at fixed prices, which encourages people to fill their plates with more food than they can actually eat. Retail stores offer large packages and “getting one for free” bargains. Likewise, food manufactures produce oversized ready to eat meals (Stuart, 2009). Prevention: Public awareness. Education on these matters in schools and political initiatives are possible starting points to change people’s attitudes towards the current massive food waste.

15

5. Conclusions This study has compiled and analyzed a magnitude of data and reports on food losses and waste. Waste levels and waste volumes in each step of the food supply chain were estimated. Causes of and possible ways to prevent food losses and waste in each step of the food supply chain were reported. Due to lack of sufficient data, many assumptions on food waste levels at foremost the distribution and consumption levels had to be made. Therefore, the results in this study must be interpreted with great caution. The studies first reveal the major data gaps in available knowledge of global food waste, especially with regard to the quantification of food losses by individual cause, and the cost of food loss prevention. And when data are available, they are often accompanied with major uncertainties. Further research in the area is urgent, especially considering that food security is a major concern in large parts of the developing world. While increasing primary food production is paramount to meet the future increase in final demand, tensions between production and access to food can also be reduced by tapping into the potential to reduce food losses. Efficient solutions exist along the whole food chain, for reducing total amounts of food lost and wasted. Actions should not only be directed towards isolated parts of the chain, since what is done (or not done) in one part has effects in others. In low income countries, measures should foremost have a producer perspective, e.g. by improving harvest techniques, farmer education, storage facilities and cooling chains. In industrialized countries on the other hand, solutions at producer and industrial level would only be marginal if consumers continue to waste at current levels. Consumer households need to be informed and change the behavior which causes the current high levels of food waste. Another point to be stressed is that the food supply chain of today is more and more globalized. Certain food items are produced, transformed and consumed in very different parts of the world. The impact of growing international trade on food losses still has to be better assessed.

16

References Alverson, D.L., Freeberg, M.H., Murawaski, S.A. & Pope, J.G. 1994. A global assessment of fisheries bycatch and discards. Fisheries Technical Paper No. 339, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome. Choudhury, M.L. 2006. Recent developments in reducing postharvest losses in the Asia-Pacific region. From: Postharvest management of fruit and vegetables in the Asia-Pacific region, APO, ISBN: 92-833-7051-1. FAOSTAT. 2010a. FAO Statistical Yearbook 2009 - Agricultural Production, available at: http://www.fao. org/economic/ess/publications-studies/statistical-yearbook/fao-statistical-yearbook-2009/b-agriculturalproduction/en/ FAOSTAT. 2010d. Food Balance Sheets 2007, available at: http://faostat.fao.org/site/354/default.aspx Kader, A.A. 2005. Increasing food availability by reducing postharvest losses of fresh produce, Proc. 5th Int. Postharvest Symp. Acta Hortic. 682, ISHS 2005. Kelleher, K. 2005. Discards in the world’s marine fisheries – an update. FAO, Rome, ISBN 92-5-105289-1 Parfitt, J., Barthel, M. & Macnaughton, S. 2010. Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050, Phil. Trans. R. Soc., vol. 365, pp. 3065-3081 Rolle. 2006. Improving postharvest management and marketing in the Asia-Pacific region: issues and challenges. From: Postharvest management of fruit and vegetables in the Asia-Pacific region, APO, ISBN: 92-833-7051-1 SEPA. 2008. Svinn I livsmedelskedjan – möjligheter till minskade mängder. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Bromma, Sweden, ISBN 978-91-620-5885-2 Stuart, T. 2009. Waste – uncovering the global food scandal. Penguin Books: London, ISBN: 978-0-14103634-2

17

Further reading Aerni, V., Brinkhof, M.W.G., Wechsler, B., Oester, H. & Fröhlich, E. 2005. Productivity and mortality of laying hens in aciaries: a systematic review. World’s Poultry Journal, vol. 61, pp. 130-138. Åhnberg, A. & Strid, I. 2010. When food turns into waste – a study on practices and handling of losses of fruit and vegetables and meat in Willys Södertälje Weda. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala. Aidoo, K.E. 1993. Post-harvest storage and preservation of tropical crops. International biodeterioration & Biodegradation, vol. 32, pp. 161-173. Akande, G. & Diei-Ouadi, Y. 2010. Post-harvest losses in small-scale fisheries – cases studies in five subSaharan African countries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, ISBN 97892-5-106671-3. Alder, J., Campbell, B., Karpouzi, V., Kaschner, K. & Pauly, D. 2008. Forage fish: from Ecosystems to Markets. Annual Reviews in Environment and Resources 33: 153-166 [+ 8 pages of figures]. Alexander, C. & Smaje, C. 2008. Surplus retail food redistribution: An analysis of a third sector model. Resources, conservation and recycling, vol. 52, pp. 1290-1298. Alton, G.D., Pearl, D.L., Bateman, K.G., McNab, W.B. & Berke, O. 2010. Factors associated with whole carcass condemnation rates in provincially-inspected abattoirs in Ontario 2001-2007: implications for food animal syndromic surveillance. BMC Veterinary Research, 6:42. Andersson, K. & Ohlsson, T. 1999. Life Cycle Assessment of bread produced on different scales. Int J of LCA, vol. 4(1), pp. 25-40. Animal Handling and Stunning Conference on February 21-22. 2002. Available at: http://www.grandin.com/meat/hand.stun.relate.quality.html, 2010-12-16. Anon. 2000. LCA Food. The Federation of Swedish Farmers, Stockholm. Appleby, M.C., Cussen, V., Garcés, L., Lambert, L.A. & Turner, J. 2008. Long distance transport and welfare of farm animals. CABI: Wallingford, ISBN-13:978 1 845934033. AWARENET (Agro-food waste minimization and reduction network) (Ed.) 2003. Handbook for the prevention and minimization of waste and valorization of by-products in European agro-food industries, ANNEX 5. Babiker, M.A., Tawfeig, A., Yahia, I.E. & Noura, K. 2009. Mortality and diseases status in layer chicken flocks reared in traditional farms in Khartoum-Sudan. International Journal of Poultry Science, vol. 8, pp. 264-269. Bala, B.K., Haque, M.A., Hossain, A. & Majumdar, S. 2010. Post harvest loss and technical efficiency of rice, wheat and maize production system: assessment and measures for strengthening food security. Bangladesh Agricultural University, Final report CF # 6/08. Basumatary, R., Naskar, S., Kumaresan, A., Khargharia, G., Kadirvel, G. & Bardoloi, R.K. 2009. Analysis of mortality pattern among indigenous and upgraded pigs under tropical hill agro climatic conditions in eastern Himalayas. Livestock Science, vol. 123, pp. 169-174. Béchir, K. Undated. Postharvest losses of fruits and vegetables in Tunisia, available at: http://ressources.ciheam.org/om/pdf/c42/CI020469.pdf Bedford, Cranfield University and Defra. Available at: www.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk and www.defra.gov.uk Belk, K.E., Scanga, J.A., Smith, G.C. & Grandin, T. 2002. The Relationship Between Good Handling / Stunning and Meat Quality in Beef, Pork, and Lamb. Presented at the American Meat Institute Foundation, Animal Handling and Stunning Conference on February 21-22, 2002, available at: http://www.grandin.com/meat/hand.stun.relate.quality.html Bloom, J. 2010. American Wasteland. How America throws away nearly half of its food (and what we can do about it). Da Capo Press, Cambridge. Brabet, C., Bricas, N., Hounhouigan, J.D., Nago, M.C. & Wack, A.L. 1998. Use of African cassava varieties for the production in Benin of sour starch, a traditional Latin-American baking product. In: Triennal Symposium of the International Society for Tropical Root Crops – African Branch (ISTRC-AB).

18

Global food losses and food waste

Buzby, J.C., Farah Wells, H., Axtman, B. & Mickey, J. 2009. Supermarket Loss Estimates for Fresh Fruit, Vegetables, Meat, Poultry, and Seafood and Their Use in the ERS Loss-Adjusted Food Availability Data, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Information Bulletin Number 44. Castro-Garcia, S., Rosa, U.A., Gliever, C.J., Smith, D., Burns, J.K., Krueger, W.H., Ferguson, L. & Glozer, K. 2009. Video evaluation of table olive damage during harvest with a canopy shaker. Hor. Technology, vol. 19, pp. 260-266. Cheng, A.G. 2008. Citrus production and utilization in China. AP Technology Development Manager, JBT Corporation, Fresh Produce Technologies, Lakeland, FL. CNKI. 2010. China yearbook of agricultural price survey, available at: http://tongji.cnki.net/kns55/navi/YearBook.aspx?id=N2009060178&floor=1 , 2010-12-03. Cornell Waste Management Institute. 2002. Natural rendering: Composting livestock mortality and butchers waste. Department of Crop & Soil Sciences: Ithaca, NY. Elyatem, S.M. Undated. Citrus production and handling in West Asia and North Africa region. Available at: http://www.egfar.org/egfar/lfm/gphi_documents/02_Region_specific_documents/B_West_Asia_and_ North_Africa_(AARINENA)/02_Background_Documents/06_Commodities/B-6-001-B12_Citrus_in_ WANA.pdf Engström, R. & Carlsson-Kanyama, A. 2004. Food losses in food service institutions – examples from Sweden. Food Policy, vol. 29, pp. 203-213. FAO. 1989. Yield and nutritional value of the commercially more important fish species. FAO Technical paper 309, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. FAO. 2005. Discards in the world’s marine fisheries – an update. FAO Fisheries technical paper 470, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. FAO. 2009. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2008. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. FAO. 2010. Compendium on post-harvest operations, available at: http://www.fao.org/inpho/content/compend/toc_main.htm FAO. 2010b. Post-harvest losses in artisanal fisheries, available at: http://www.fao.org/focus/e/fisheries/proc.htm FAO. Undated. Market profile on tropical fruits in India. Sugar and beverages group, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. FAOSTAT. 2010b. Publications on Statistical Methods and Standards: Crops statistics – Concepts, Definitions and Classifications, available at: http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/methodology/methodology-systems/ crops-statistics-concepts-definitions-and-classifications/en/ FAOSTAT. 2010c. Publications on Statistical Methods and Standards: Livestock statistics – Concepts, Definitions and Classifications, available at: http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/methodology/methodologysystems/crops-statistics-concepts-definitions-and-classifications/en/ Fehr, M. & Romão, D.C. 2001. Measurement of fruit and vegetable losses in Brazil – A case study. Environment, Development and Sustainability, vol. 3, pp. 253-263. Flysjö, A., Cederberg, C & Strid I. 2008. LCA Data base for conventional feed ingredients, in Swedish, SIK Report 772, SIK – The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden. Food and Fertilizer Technology Center for the Asian and Pacific region. 2007. Postharvest losses of fruit and vegetables in Asia, available at: http://www.agnet.org/library/ac/1993d/ Gan Su Potato Network. 2010. Available at: http://www.gsnsupotato.com/longtou/ShowArticle. asp?ArticleID=519 Ghafoor, U., Muhammad, S., Mehmood Ch., K., Randhawa, M.A. & Ashraf, I. 2010. Harvesting and marketing problems faced by citrus (kinnow) growers of Tehsil Toba Tek Singh, J. Agric. Res., vol. 48. Griffin, M, Sobal, S. & Lyson, T.A. 2009. An analysis of a community food waste stream. Agric Hum Values, vol. 26, pp. 67-81. Grimes, J., Beranger, J., Bender, M. & Walters, M. Undated. Pasturing turkeys. How to raise heritage turkeys on pasture: Chapter 3, available at: http://www.albc-usa.org/documents/turkeymanual/ALBCturkey-3.pdf Guajardo, J. 2008. Citrus industry in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. Beverage Conference September 16-19, Clearwater Beach, FL.

Further reading

19

Gustavsson, J. 2010. The climate change impact of retail waste from horticultural products, Degree project for Master of Science in Environmental Sciences, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Haslam, S.M., Knowles, T.G., Brown, S.N., Wilkins, L.J., Kestin, S.C., Warriss, P.D. & Nicol, C.J. 2008. Prevalence and factors associated with it, of birds dead on arrival at the slaughterhouse and other rejection conditions in broiler chickens. British Poultry Science, vol. 49, pp. 685-696. Hobson, E.N. & Bruce, D.M. 2002. Seed loss when cutting a standing crop of oilseed rape with two types of combine harvest header. Biosystems Engineering, vol. 81, pp. 281-286. Hodges, R.H. Undated. Postharvest weight loss estimates for cereal supply calculations in East and Southern Africa, available at: http://www.phlosses.net/downloads/Postharvest-losses-report.pdf Hospido, A. & Sonesson, U. 2005. The environmental impact of mastitis: a case study of dairy herds. Science of the Total Environment, vol. 343, pp. 71-82. Hossain, A. & Miah, M. 2009. Post harvest losses and technical efficiency of potato storage systems in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Final Report CF # 2/08. HSUS. Undated. The welfare of animals in the turkey industry. The humane society of the United States, available at: http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/farm/HSUS-Report-on-Turkey-Welfare.pdf Huq, R. 2002. Longitudinal Study of the Causes of Mortality of Chickens in Parent Stock Flocks of the Department of Livestock Services (DLS) of Bangladesh with a Special Emphasis on Esherichia coli Infection. M. Sc. Thesis, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Bangladesh. Ibironke, A.A., McCrindle, C.ME., Adejuwon, T.A. & Cadmus, S.IB. 2010. Losses associated with mortality of cattle and camels during transportation to Oko-Oba abattoir, Lagos State, Nigeria. European Journal Translational Myology – Basic Applied Myology, vol. 1, pp. 13-16. Ismaila, U., Gana, A.S., Tswanya, N.M. & Dogara, D. 2010. Cereals production in Nigeria: Problems, constraints and opportunities for betterment. African Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 5(12), pp. 13411350. Israel, D.C. & Roque, R.M.G.R. 2000. Analysis of fishing ports in the Philippines. PIDS – Philippine Institute for Development Studies, Makati City. Jowkar, M.M., Mohammadpour, H., Farshadfar, Z. & Jowkar, A. 2005. A look at postharvest in Iran. Proc. 5th Int. Postharvest Symp., Acta Hort. 682, ISHS 2005. Kabahenda, M.K., Omony, P. & Hüsken, S.M.C. 2009. Post-harvest handling of low-value fish products and threats to nutritional quality: a review of practices in the Lake Victoria region. Fisheries and HIV/AIDS in Africa: Investing in Sustainable Solutions, The WorldFish Center. Kader, A.A. & Rolle, R.S. 2004. The role of post-harvest management in assuring the quality and safety of horticultural produce, FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin, ISSN: 1010-1365. Kantor, L.S., Lipton, K., Manchester, A. & Oliveira, V. 1997. Estimating and addressing America’s food losses. Food Review 20, pp. 2-12. Keijbets, M.J.H. 2008. Potato processing for the consumer: developments and future challenges. Potato Research, vol. 51, pp. 271-281. Khan, Z.U., Khan, S., Ahmad, N. & Raziq, A. 2007. Investigation of mortality incidence and managemental practices in buffalo calves at commercial dairy farms in Peshawar City. Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science, vol. 2, pp. 16-21. Kitinoja, L. 2010a. Identification of appropriate postharvest technologies for improving market access and incomes for small horticultural farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Part 2: Postharvest Loss Assessments. World Food Logistic Organization. Knowles, T.G. 1998. A review of the road transport of slaughter sheep. Veterinary Record, vol. 143, pp. 212-219. Kumolu-Johnson, C.A., Aladetohun, N.F. & Ndimele, P.E. 2010. The effects of smoking on the nutritional qualities and shelf-life of Clarias gariepinus. African Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 9, pp. 073-076. Lundqvist, J., Fraiture, C. de & Molden, D. 2008. Saving Water: From Field to Fork – Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food Chain. SIWI Policy Brief. SIWI. Lupo, C., Le Bouquin, S., Allain, V., Balaine, L., Michel, V., Petetin, I., Colin, P. & Chauvin, C. 2010. Risk and indicators of condemnation of male turkey broilers in western France, February-July 2006. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, vol. 94, pp. 240-250.

20

Global food losses and food waste

Malena, M., Voslarova, E., Kozak, A., Belobradadek, P., Bedanova, I., Steinhauser, L. & Vecerek, V. 2007. Comparison of mortality rates in different categories of pigs and cattle during transport for slaughter. ACTA VET, vol. 76, pp. 109-116. Malik, A.U. & Mazhar, M.S. 2007. Evaluation of postharvest losses in Mango. ACIAR, Australian Center for International Agricultural Research. Mandal, A., Prasad, H., Kumar, A., Roy, R. & Sharma, N. 2007. Factors associated with lamb mortalities in Muzaffarnagari sheep. Small Ruminant Research, vol. 70, pp. 273-279. McConnel, C.S., Lombards, J.E., Wagner, B.A. & Garry, F.B. 2008. Evaluation of factors associated with increased dairy cow mortality on United States dairy operations. J. Dairy Sci., vol. 91, pp. 1423-1432 Mukasa-Mugerwa, E., Lahlou-Kassi, A., Anindo, D., Rege, J.E.O., Tembely, S., Tibbo, M. & Baker, R.L. 2000. Between and within breed variation in lamb survival and the risk factors associated with major causes of mortality in indigenous Horro and Menz sheep in Ethiopia. Small Ruminant Research, vol 37, pp. 1-12. Mungai, J.K. 2000. Processing of fruits and vegetables in Kenya. GTZ – Integration of tree crops into farming systems project, ICRAF House, Nairobi. NRI. Natural Resources Institute. 2009. Framework paper on postharvest loss reduction in Africa. FAO, Rome. Newman, S.M., Ku, V.V.V., Hetherington, S.D., Chu, T.D., Tran, D.L. & Nissen, R.J. 2008. Mapping stone fruit supply chains in North West Vietnam. Acta Hort. Proc. 11nd IS on Supply Chains in Transit. Econ. Nguyen, T.L., Hermansen, J.E. & Mogensen, L. 2010. Different beef production in EU, J. of Cleaner Production, vol. 18, pp. 756-766. Njai, S.E. 2000. Traditional fish processing and marketing of the Gambia. Final project, UNU-Fisheries Training Programme. Nor, Z.M. 2004. Post harvest losses prevention in Iceland and making of a model to be applied in Malaysia. UNU-Fisheries Training Program, Final Project 2004. Nunes, M.C.N., Emond, J.P., Rauth, M., Dea, S. & Chau, K.V. 2009. Environmental conditions encountered during typical consumer retail display affect fruit and vegetable quality and waste. Postharvest Biology and Technology, vol. 51, pp. 232–241. Opara, L.U. & Al-Jufaili, S.M. 2006. Status of fisheries postharvest industry in the Sultanate of Oman: Part 2-Quantification of fresh fish losses. Journal of fisheries international, vol. 2-4, pp. 150-156. Pal, U.S., Khan, Md.K., Sahoo, G.R. & Sahoo, N.R. 2002. Post-harvest losses on tomato, cabbage and cauliflower. Agricultural mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, vol. 33, pp. 35-41. Pálsson, Ó.K. 2003. A length-based analysis of haddock discards in Icelandic fisheries. Fisheries Research, vol. 59, pp. 437-446. Papadopulos, V. 1997. Monsooon season post-harvest fish losses in India. Project No. A0665, Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Kent. Pandey, S.K. 2009. Interview in the Financial Express, available at: http://www.financialexpress.com/news/ processing-industry-to-consume-10-of-potato-output-by-201011/443390/0 Petracci, M., Bianchi, M., Cavani, C., Gaspari, P. & Lavazza, A. 2006. Pre slaughter mortality in broiler chickens, turkeys, and spent hens under commercial slaughtering. Poultry Science, vol. 85, pp. 1660-1664 Post Harvest Losses Information Systems. 2010. Available at: http://www.aphlis.net/index.php?form=losses_estimates (year 2007). Potatoes South Africa. 2010. Production - processing industry, available at: http://www.potatoes.co.za/processing-industry.aspx Rajendran, S. 2002. Postharvest pest losses. Encyclopedia of Pest Management, ISBN: 978-0-8247-0632-6. Reardon, T., Berdegué, J.A. & Farrington, J. 2002. Supermarkets and farming in Latin America: Pointing directions for elsewhere? Natural Resource Perspective, nr 81. Reza, M.S., Bapary, M.A.J., Azimuddin, K.M., Nurullah, M. & Kamal, M. 2005. Studies on the traditional drying activities of commercially important marine fishes of Bangladesh. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, vol. 8, pp. 1303-1310. Ritz, C.W., Webster, A.B. & Czarick, M. 2005. Evaluation of hot weather thermal environment and incidence of mortality associated with broiler live haul. Poultry Science Association, vol. 14, pp. 594-602. Roberts, H., Jager de, L. & Blight, G. 2009. Waste-handling practices at red meat abattoirs in South Africa. Waste management & Research, vol. 27, pp. 25-30.

Further reading

21

Salak-Johnsson, J., Siemens, M., Sterle, J., Stull, C., Whiting, T., Wolter, B., Niekamp, S.R. & Johnson, A.K. 2009. Review: Transport losses in market weight pigs: I. A Review of definitions, Incidence, and economic impact. The professional animal scientist, vol. 25, pp. 404-414. Schneider, F. Wasting food – An insistent behavior. BOKU- University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria. SEPA. 2009. Minskat svinn av livsmedel I skolkök – erfarenheter och framgångsfaktorer. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden, ISBN 91-620-5979-8. SEPA. 2009a. Minskat svinn av livsmedel i skolkök – erfarenheter och framgångsfaktorer. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Rapport 5979. Singleton, G. 2003. Impacts of rodents on rice production in Asia. Los Baños, Laguna: IRRI. 30p Smil, V. 2004. Improving efficiency and reducing waste in our food system. Environmental Sciences, vol. 1, pp. 17-26. Smith, N. & Ali, M. 2002. Waste from food – Review of developing and transitional countries. FAO, Rome. Söderlund, M. 2007. Hantering av restprodukter inom bageriverksamhet – fallstudie Pågen AB. Thesis in Industrial Economy, Lund University. Somsen, D. 2004. Production yield analysis in food processing – applications in the French-fries and the poultry industries. Ph. D. thesis, Wageningen University: The Netherlands, ISBN: 90-5808-967-3. The Cornell Waste Management Institute. 2001. On-site composting of meat by-products. Cornell University, available at: http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/On%20Site%20Composting%20of%20Meat%20 By%20Products.pdf Tokarnia, C.H., Döbereiner, J., Peixoto, P. 2002. Poisonous plants affecting livestock in Brazil. Toxicon, vol. 40, pp. 1635-1660. Trent, N., Ormel, P., Garcia de Siles, J.L., Heinz, G. & James, M. Undated. The state of meat production in developing countries: 2002, available at: http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/hsp/soa_ii_chap12.pdf Tröger, K., Hensel, O. & Bürkert, A. 2007. Conservation of onion and tomato in Niger – Assessment of postharvest losses and drying methods, Conference on International Agricultural Research for Development. Tuszynski, W.B. 1978. Packaging, storage and distribution of processed milk. FAO, Rome. Tyedmers, P. 2004. Fisheries and Energy Use, Encyclopedia of Energy, Vol. 2, Elsevier. UNECE. 2005. Average household size. Trends in Europe and North America – The statistical yearbook of the economic commission for Europe 2005. UNEP. 2009. The environmental food crisis. ISBN: 978-82-7701-054-0. UNICEF. 1990. Cassava in tropical Africa. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Nigeria. UNIDO. 2004a. Small-scale Cereal Milling and Bakery Products – production methods, equipment and quality assurance practices. UNIDO, United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Technology Manual. UNIDO. 2004b. Small-scale Root Crops and Tubers Processing and Products – production methods, equipment and quality assurance practices. UNIDO. Technology Manual. UNIDO. 2004c. Small-scale Fruit and Vegetable Processing and Products – production methods, equipment and quality assurance practices. UNIDO. Technology Manual. USDA. 2010a. Loss-Adjusted Food Availability: Spreadsheets, U.S Department of Agriculture, available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/foodconsumption/FoodGuideSpreadsheets.htm 100921 USDA. 2010b. U.S. Potato Statistics, Utilization of U.S. potatoes, available at: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1235 USDA. 2010c. Fruit and Tree Nut Yearbook Spreadsheet Files, available at: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1377 Ventour, L. 2008. The food we waste. Banbury: WRAP, ISBN: 1-84405-383-0 (version 2). Voslarova, E., Janackova, B., Rubesova, L., Kozak, A., Bedanova, I., Steinhauser, L. & Vecerek, V. 2007. Mortality rates in poultry species and categories during transport for slaughter, ACTA VET. BRNO, vol. 76, pp. 101-108. Waldron, K., Faulds, C. & Smith, A. (Ed.) 2004. Total Food – Exploiting co products – minimizing waste. Institute of Food Research. Norwich. ISBN 0-7084-0644-5. Westby, A. 2002. Cassava utilization, storage and small-scale processing. Natural Resource Institute, University of Greenwich, Kent, available at: http://www.researchintouse.com/nrk/RIUinfo/outputs/R7497_a.pdf

22

Global food losses and food waste

Williams, A.G., Audsley, E. & Sandars, DL. 2006. Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. Main Report, Defra Research Project IS0205, Bedford, Cranfield University and Defra, available at: www.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk and www.defra.gov.uk Wirsenius, S., Azar, C., Berndes, G. 2010. How much land is needed for global food production under scenarios of dietary changes and livestock productivity increases in 2030? Agricultural systems, vol. 103, pp. 621-638. World Bank. 2010. GDP per capita, PPP. International Comparison Program database. World resources 1998-99. 1998. Disappearing food: How big are postharvest losses?, available at: http://earthtrends.wri.org/features/view_feature.php?theme=3&fid=13 WRAP. 2006. Packaging technologies with potential to reduce the amount of food thrown away. Report prepared by WRAP, Banbury. WRAP. 2007. Understanding food waste – Key findings of our recent research on the nature, scale and causes of household food waste. Report prepared by WRAP, Banbury. WRAP. 2009. Household food and drink waste in the UK. Report prepared by WRAP, Banbury. Wymann, M.N., Bonfoh, B., Schelling, E., Bengaly, S., Tembely, S., Tanner, M. & Zinsstag, J. 2006. Calf mortality rate and causes of death under different herd management systems in peri-urban Bamako, Mali. Livestock Science, vol. 100, pp. 169-178. Yorio, P. & Caille, G. 2004. Fish waste as an alternative resource for gulls along the Patagonian coast: Availability, use, and potential consequences. Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 48, pp. 778-783.

23

Annex 1. Grouping of world regions Countries included in world regions 1-3 – Medium/High-income countries. Region 1: Europe Albania Armenia Austria Azerbaijan Belarus Belgium Bosnia & Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland

France Georgia Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxemburg Macedonia Moldova Montenegro

Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russian Federation Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Ukraine United Kingdom

Region 2: USA, Canada, Oceania

Region 3: Industrialized Asia

Australia Canada New Zealand United States of America

Japan China South Korea

Countries included in world regions 4-7 – Low-income countries. Region 4 sub-Saharan Africa Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Central African Rep Chad Congo-Brazzaville Congo-Kinshasa Cote d’Ivoire Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho

Liberia Malawi Mali Mauritania Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rwanda Senegal Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe

Region 5

Region 6

North Africa, West and Central Asia

South and Southeast Asia

Algeria Egypt Iraq Israel Jordan Kazakhstan Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lebanon Libya Mongolia Morocco Oman Saudi Arabia Syria Tajikistan Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Utd Arab Emirates Uzbekistan Yemen

Afghanistan Bangladesh Bhutan Cambodia India Indonesia Iran Laos Malaysia Myanmar Nepal Pakistan Philippines Sri Lanka Thailand Vietnam

Region 7 Latin America Argentina Belize Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Dominican Rep Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Guyana Haiti Honduras Jamaica Mexico Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru Suriname Uruguay Venezuela

24

Annex 2. Commodity groups The different commodities addressed are grouped according to FAOSTAT’s Food Balance Sheets (http://www.fao.org/corp/statistics/en/): 1. Cereals (excluding beer): wheat, rice (milled), barley, maize, rye, oats, millet, sorghum, other cereals. 2. Roots and Tubers: potatoes, sweet potatoes, cassava, yams, other roots. 3. Oilseeds and Pulses (including nuts): soybeans, groundnuts (shelled), sunflower seeds, rape and mustard seed, cottonseed, coconuts (incl. copra), sesame seed, palm kernels, olives, other oil crops. 4. Fruit and Vegetables (including bananas): oranges and mandarins, lemons and limes, grapefruit, other citrus, bananas, plantains, apples (excl. cider), pineapples, dates, grapes (excl. wine), other fruit, tomatoes, onions, other vegetables. 5. Meat: bovine meat, mutton/goat meat, pig meat, poultry meat, other meat, offals. 6. Fish and seafood: freshwater fish, demersal fish, pelagic fish, other marine fish, crustaceans, other mollusk, cephalopods, other aquatic products, aquatic mammal meat, other aquatic animals, aquatic plants. 7. Dairy products: milk.

25

Annex 3. Additional references for quantifying food losses/waste NB.: Conversion factor determines the part of the agricultural product that is edible. Allocation factor determines the part of the agricultural produce that is allocated for human consumption. LIC: low-income countries; MHIC: medium/high income countries; FBS: food balance sheets. Cereals: Conversion factors: wheat, rye = 0.78; maize, millet, sorghum =0.79 (LIC), =0.69 (MHIC); rice = 1; oats, barley, other cereals = 0.78. Source: Wirsenius (2000) Allocation factors for losses during agricultural production and postharvest handling and storage: Europe = 0.35; NA&Oce = 0.50; Ind. Asia = 0.60; SSA = 0.75; NA,WA&CA = 0.60; S&SE Asia = 0.67; LA = 0.40. Roots & Tubers: Proportion of roots and tubers utilized fresh: Assumed average proportion of cassava utilized fresh in SSA = 50%. Source: Westby (2002). In LA = 20%. Source: Brabet (1998). Assumed average proportion of potato utilized fresh in Europe and NA&Oce = 27%. Source: USDA (2010b). In NA,WA&CA = 81%. Source: Potatoes South Africa (2010). In S&SE Asia = 90%. Source: Pendey (2009) and Keijbets (2008). In Ind. Asia = 85%. Source: Keijbets (2008) and FAOSTAT (2010a). Conversion factors: Peeling by hand = 0.74; Industrial peeling = 0.90. Source: UNICEF (1990), Mattsson (2001). Oil crops & pulses: Allocation factors: SSA = 0.63; NA,WA&CA = 0.12; S&SE Asia = 0.63; LA = 0.12  ; Europe = 0.20; NA&Oce = 0.17; Ind. Asia = 0.24. Source: FAOSTAT (2010d) Fruit & Vegetables: Proportion of fruit and vegetables utilized fresh: Assumed average proportion of fruit & vegetables utilized fresh in SSA = 99%. Source: Mungai (2000). In NA,WA&CA = 50%. Source: Guajardo (2008). In S&SE Asia = 95%. Source: FAO (undated). In LA = 50%. Source: Guajardo (2008). In Europe and NA&Oce = 40%. Source: USDA (2010c). In Ind. Asia = 96%. Source: Cheng (2008) Conversion factors: peeling by hand = 0.8; industrial peeling = 0.75; mean = 0.77. Source: own investigation and UNIDO (2004c) Fish & Seafood: Proportion of fish and seafood utilized fresh: Assumed average proportion of fish & seafood utilized fresh in LIC = 60%; in MHIC = 4 %. Source: FAO (2009) Conversion factor: Average conversion factor for fish & seafood = 0.5. Source: FAO (1989).

26

Annex 4. Weight percentages of food losses and waste (in percentage of what enters each step) Estimated/assumed waste percentages for each commodity group in each step of the FSC for Europe incl. Russia.

Cereals

Agricultural production

Postharvest handling and storage

Processing and packaging

Distribution: Supermarket Retail

Consumption

2%

4%

0.5%, 10%

2%

25% 17%

Roots & Tubers

20%

9%

15%

7%

Oilseeds & Pulses

10%

1%

5%

1%

4%

Fruit & Vegetables

20%

5%

2%

10%

19%

Meat

3.1%

0.7%

5%

4%

11%

Fish & Seafood

9.4%

0.5%

6%

9%

11%

Milk

3.5%

0.5%

1.2%

0.5%

7%

Estimated/assumed waste percentages for each commodity group in each step of the FSC for North America & Oceania. Agricultural production

Postharvest handling and storage

Processing and packaging

Distribution: Supermarket Retail

Consumption

Cereals

2%

2%

0.5%, 10%

2%

27%

Roots & Tubers

20%

10%

15%

7%

30%

Oilseeds & Pulses

12%

0%

5%

1%

4%

Fruit & Vegetables

20%

4%

2%

12%

28%

Meat

3.5%

1.0%

5%

4%

11%

Fish & Seafood

12%

0.5%

6%

9%

33%

Milk

3.5%

0.5%

1.2%

0.5%

15%

Estimated/assumed waste percentages for each commodity group in each step of the FSC for Industrialized Asia. Agricultural production

Postharvest handling and storage

Processing and packaging

Distribution

Consumption

Cereals

2%

10%

0.5%, 10%

2%

20% 10%

Roots & Tubers

20%

7%

15%

9%

Oilseeds & Pulses

6%

3%

5%

1%

4%

Fruit & Vegetables

10%

8%

2%

8%

15%

Meat

2.9%

0.6%

5%

6%

8%

Fish & Seafood

15%

2%

6%

11%

8%

Milk

3.5%

1%

1.2%

0.5%

5%

Annex 4 − Weight percentages of food losses and waste (in percentage of what enters each step)

27

Estimated/assumed waste percentages for each commodity group in each step of the FSC for sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Production

Postharvest handling and storage

Processing and packaging

Distribution

Consumption

Cereals

6%

8%

3.5%

2%

1%

Roots & Tubers

14%

18%

15%

5%

2%

Oilseeds & Pulses

12%

8%

8%

2%

1%

Fruits & Vegetables

10%

9%

25%

17%

5%

Meat

15%

0.7%

5%

7%

2%

Fish & Seafood

5.7%

6%

9%

15%

2%

6%

11%

0.1%

10%

0.1%

Milk

Estimated/assumed waste percentages for each commodity group in each step of the FSC for North Africa, West&Central Asia. Agricultural production

Postharvest handling and storage

Processing and packaging

Distribution

Consumption

Cereals

6%

8%

2%, 7%

4%

12%

Roots & Tubers

6%

10%

12%

4%

6%

Oilseeds & Pulses

15%

6%

8%

2%

2%

Fruits & Vegetables

17%

10%

20%

15%

12%

Meat

6.6%

0.2%

5%

5%

8%

Fish & Seafood

6.6%

5%

9%

10%

4%

Milk

3.5%

6%

2%

8%

2%

Estimated/assumed waste percentages for each commodity group in each step of the FSC for South & Southeast Asia. Agricultural production

Postharvest handling and storage

Processing and packaging

Distribution

Consumption

Cereals

6%

7%

3.5%

2%

3%

Roots & Tubers

6%

19%

10%

11%

3%

Oilseeds & Pulses

7%

12%

8%

2%

1%

Fruits & Vegetables

15%

9%

25%

10%

7%

Meat

5.1%

0.3%

5%

7%

4%

Fish & Seafood

8.2%

6%

9%

15%

2%

Milk

3.5%

6%

2%

10%

1%

Estimated/assumed waste percentages for each commodity group in each step of the FSC for Latin America. Agricultural production

Postharvest handling and storage

Processing and packaging

Distribution

Consumption at household level

Cereals

6%

4%

2%, 7%

4%

10%

Roots & Tubers

14%

14%

12%

3%

4%

Oilseeds & Pulses

6%

3%

8%

2%

2%

Fruits & Vegetables

20%

10%

20%

12%

10%

Meat

5.3%

1.1%

5%

5%

6%

Fish & Seafood

5.7%

5%

9%

10%

4%

Milk

3.5%

6%

2%

8%

4%

28

Annex 5. Example of calculations of food losses and waste Example: Calculations on losses and waste of fruit and vegetables (F&V) in SSA. The figure below shows the mass flow of total F&V (1000 tons), as presented in the 2007 FBSs for SSA.

Figure 10. Mass flow of total F&V (1000 tons) as presented in the 2007 FBSs for SSA

∑ Supply elements = Production (A) 83 325

Domestic supply quantity (E) 81 517

Import quantity (B) 2 583 Stock variation (C) 179 Export quantity (D) 4 570

A+B+C-D=E-(F+G+H+I) = J=K+L Waste percentage in each step of the FSC: Agricultural production = 10% Postharvest handling and storage = 9% Processing and packaging = 25% Distribution (fresh F&V) = 17% Distribution (processed F&V) = 10% Consumption (fresh F&V) = 5% Consumption (processed F&V) = 1%

− ∑ Utilization elements = Feed (F) 2 373 Seed (G) 0 Processing (H) 6 431 Waste (I) 8 076

Food (J) 64 637

Fresh f&v (K) 63 991 Processed f&v (L) 646

Annex 4 − Weight percentages of food losses and waste (in percentage of what enters each step)

Calculations on primary equivalent F&V losses and waste in each step of the FSC: Agricultural production: (0.1/(1-0.1))*83 325 = 9 258 = 9.3 mn tonnes Postharvest handling and storage: 0.09*83 325 = 7 817 = 7.8 mn tonnes Processing and packaging = 0.25*(646+6 431) = 1 769 = 1.8 mn tonnes Distribution (fresh F&V): 0.17*63 991 = 10 878 = 11 mn tonnes Distribution (processed F&V): 0.1*(646+6 431-1 769) = 531 = 0.5 mn tonnes Consumption (fresh F&V): 0.05*(63 991-10 878) = 2 656 = 2.7 mn tonnes Consumption (processed F&V): 0.01*(646+6 431-1 769-531) = 48 = 0.05 mn tonnes Conversion factors: peeling by hand = 0.8; industrial peeling = 0.75; mean = 0.77 Calculations on edible F&V losses and waste in each step of the FSC: Agricultural production: 9 258*0.77 = 7 129 = 7.1 mn tonnes Postharvest handling and storage: 7 817*0.77 = 6 019 = 6.0 mn tonnes Processing and packaging: 1 769*0.75 = 1 327 = 1.3 mn tonnes Distribution: (10 878*0.8)+(531*0.75) = 9 101 = 9.1 mn tonnes Consumption: (2 656*0.8)+(48*0.75) = 2 161 = 2.1 mn tonnes

29

Study conducted for the International Congress SAVE FOOD! at Interpack2011 Düsseldorf, Germany

Global f o o d losses a n d f o o d waste extent, causes and prevention

Rural Infrastructure and Agro-Industries Division (AGS) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome - Italy www.fao.org/ag/ags e-mail: [email protected] fax: +39 06 57053057